Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh,

  1. #1
    Sidhant's Avatar
    Sidhant is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,742

    Default Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh,

    BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.



    FA.No.1353/2007 against CD.No.731/2004 District Consumer Forum-II, Visakhapatnam.

    Between:

    Vuyyuru Sita Mahalakshmi, W/o.V.C.Panduranga Reddy,

    Hindu, Aged 57 years, R/o.Flat No.2F-4, Sagar View Apartments,

    R.K.Beach Road, Visakhapatnam.

    …Appellant/Complainant.

    And



    1.Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh,

    Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director.

    2.Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh,

    Rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Visakhapatnam.

    3.Assistant Engineer (Operations), Eastern Power Distribution

    Company of Andhra Pradesh, D-5, Taj Hotel Road,

    Nowroji Road, Visakhapatnam.

    …Respondents/Opp.Parties.



    Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.S.Rajan.

    Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.V.Ajay Kumar.



    QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER,

    AND

    SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER.



    THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE,

    TWO THOUSAND NINE.

    Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Member)

    *******

    1. Aggrieved by the order in CD.No.731/2004 on the file of District Consumer Forum-II, Visakhapatnam, the complainant preferred this appeal.

    2. The brief facts as out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a shop room in the ground floor of Sagar View Apartments near R.K.Beach Road of Visakhapatnam from one V.S.P.Ranga Raju. The said premises was provided with a service connection No.60288/1212 in the name of Ranga Raju. Though the complainant purchased the property in the year 1992 along with service connection, she has not changed her name in the records of opposite parties. The complainant was running a shop under the name and style of M/s.Sagar View Department Stores. The complainant alleges that her bimonthly consumption charges never exceeded Rs.2,500/-. While things stood thus, on 06.07.2004, an employee of the third opposite party came to the shop and handed over a bill for Rs.17,282/-. When the complainant requested to depute one of the staff members for inspecting the meter, the third opposite party visited the shop and found that the meter was recording more than 8 units per two or three minutes. Then the third opposite party ordered for replacement of the same with another meter. Accordingly, on 07.07.2004 at about 1.00 p.m. the staff of third opposite party came and replaced the meter. The complainant alleges that the old meter recorded the consumption of electricity as 1635 units from 17.07 hours on 06.07.2004 to 1.00 p.m. on 07.07.2004, though the shop was closed during the said period. This clearly shows that the old meter was a faulty one. The meter reading from 07.07.2004 to 22.07.2004 recorded in the new meter is 00077. This clearly shows that the complainant consumed only 77 units during the aforesaid period of 16 days. The conduct of opposite parties in raising the bill dt. 06.07.2004 basing on the defective/faulty meter amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, the complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to assess the consumption charges for the period from May to July, 2004, basing on the previous consumption charges upto April, 2004 or basing on the units consumed from 07.07.2004 to 22.07.2004, to direct the opposite parties not to disconnect the electricity supply to S.C.No.60288, besides damages and costs.

    3. Opposite parties filed counter stating that the complainant is not a consumer, as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. The meter got tested in the presence of complainant’s husband and the test report showed that the meter creeping was ‘nil’. Opposite parties submits that still the meter is in sealed condition after testing in the presence of the complainant’s husband. When the meter is functioning accurately, bills cannot be revised as per the terms and conditions of supply. There is no deficiency of service. Hence, the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

    4. Basing on the pleadings put forth by both parties and the documentary evidence i.e. Exs.A.1 to A.8, the District Forum opined that the complainant has no ‘locus standi’ to file the complaint and accordingly dismissed the complaint.

    5. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

    6. The brief point that falls for consideration is whether the complainant has locus standi to file this complaint or not?

    7. Heard both the counsel. The learned counsel for the complainant drew our attention to the definition of ‘Consumer’ as per the Electricity Act, 2003. Sec.2 Clause (15) of the Electricity Act defined “Consumer” as hereunder:

    “Consumer” means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be.”

    Keeping in view the definition of ‘Consumer’ as per the Electricity Act, there is no dispute in regard to the fact that the premises of the complainant herein has been enjoying electricity service connection and the bills were also being paid by the appellant/complainant herein. Hence, we are remanding this matter to the District Forum having concluded that the appellant/complainant herein is a ‘Consumer’ and has locus standi to file this complaint.

    8. In the result, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Forum with a direction to conduct denovo enquiry and dispose of the matter expeditiously. Both parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 10.07.2009 without a fresh notice being served on them. We reiterate that we did not express any of our opinion in this regard. The appellant is entitled to withdraw the amount which was deposited before this Commission.

    MEMBER

    MEMBER

    DT: 11.06.2009

  2. #2
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh,

    F.A.No.307 OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.NO.68 OF 2003 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM SRIKAKULAM

    Between
    1. The Assistant Engineer (Operation)
    Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P.ltd.,
    Saravakota, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam

    2. The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Operation
    Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.,
    Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam Dist.

    3. Assistant Accounts Officer, Electrical Revenue Officer,
    Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited
    Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam Dist.

    4. The Divisional Engineer, Assessments
    Eastern Power Distribtuion Company of A.P. Ltd.,
    Viskhapatnam

    Appellants/ opposite parties

    A N D

    Pagoti Dhaymayanthi W/o P.Dhananjaya
    Owner of the Mini Flour Mill
    R/o Aludu Village, Saravakota Mandal
    Srikakulam District.
    Respondent/complainant

    Counsel for the Appellants Sri O.Manohar Reddy
    Counsel for the respondent Sri P.V.Raghuram

    QUORUM:

    THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
    &
    SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER

    WEDNESDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER

    TWO THOUSAND NINE

    Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
    ***

    This appeal is directed against the order dated 30th day of January,2008 passed by the District Forum, Visakhapatnam whereby the complaint filed by the respondent was allowed declaring the show cause notice dated 7th August,2002 as illegal and arbitrary and directing refund of Rs.26,000/- with interest @ 12 %p.a. from 2nd Septmebr,2002 along with a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards the costs.



    Briefly stated the material facts giving rise to the appeal are: The complainant for his mini Flour Mill with 2 HP motors being run under self employment scheme obtained service connection bearing number 230. As there were other flour mills in the village, Aludu the complainant used to work on the mill one or two hours a day and for about 20 days in a month. The opposite parties used to issue bi- monthly bill for Rs.100 to Rs.200/-. The complainant used to pay the bills regularly. The opposite party no.2 issued assessment bill dated 7th August,2002 alleging that the opposite party no.4 has inspected the service connection on 30th July,2002 and found that there was am yellow wire connected to the Meter incoming phase II terminal block to outgoing cut out whereby the Meter was not running in accordance with the load. Basing on the report of the opposite party no.4, the opposite party no.2 issued demand notice for Rs.51,998/- and Rs.2,000/- towards compound fee.

    On being approached with a request to withdraw the notice, the opposite parties advised the complainant to approach Vigilance Inspector, who without giving any opportunity to the complainant arrested her husband on 1st August, 2002. The complainant requested for restoration of power supply by paying an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the compounding in addition to the half of the assessment amount in total a sum of Rs.26,000/- . On 10th December,2003, the opposite party no.3 addressed a letter to the opposite party no.1 to restore the power supply to the service connection of the complainant which the opposite parties had not done so. The opposite party no.4 issued final assessment order dated 21st September,2002 based on the final assessment notice issued by the opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.47,508/-. The final assessment order was issued on the ground that the complainant has not filed any objection to the final assessment notice. The opposite parties did not inspect the service connection of the complainant nor conducted Meter test. The preliminary notice dated 7-08-2002 and final notice dated 21-09-2002 are irregular and arbitrary and liable to be set aside.



    The opposite party no.1 filed counter. The opposite parties no.2 to 4 adopted the counter filed by the opposite party no.1.

    It was contended that on 20th August,2002 the opposite party no.2 inspected the service connection of the complainant and detected that the complainant connected a yellow wire from the incoming phase to the out going cut out bypassing the meter and thereby the complainant committed pilferage of energy. Based on the DPE Report the opposite party no.1 issued provisional assessment notice for Rs.51,998/- towards pilferage of energy along with supervising charges of Rs.150/-. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.26,000/- of the initial assessment on 2nd September,2002. Therefore, on 3rd September,2002 power supply was restored to her service connection. On appeal by the complainant, the opposite party no.4 finalized the case directing the complainant to pay an final assessment amount of Rs. 47,308/- after deducting the amount paid by her. The complainant was due an amount of Rs.21,308/- which she had not paid as a result of which the opposite party no.3 issued D-list upon receipt of which the opposite party no.1 disconnected the power supply on 11th July,2002 and restored the same on 5th August,2002 in compliance of the interim order passed by the District Forum.

    The service connection bearing number 230 was released in the name of the compliant under category II on bi-monthly basis. There are 360 service connections in Alludu village and no other flour mill except the one belonging to the complainant. The husband of the complainant was present at the spot at the time of the inspection of the service connection The consumption particulars for the months of July,2002, septmeber,2002, January,2002, July,2003 show that the power supply was restored to the service connection on 30th July,2003. The complaint is bad for non joinder of ADE. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

    The complainant filed her affidavit. The document filed by her were marked as ExA1 to A6.

    The District Forum opined that the opposite parties failed to prove the inspection of service connection by the opposite party no.4. Therefore, the assessment notice was illegal and arbitrary.

    Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties filed appeal contending that the complainant was present at the time of inspection of the service connection and that the opposite parties issued ExB15 to the complainant to pay final assessment amount.

    The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffer from any infirmity of appreciation of facts or law?

    The complainant’s running flour mill and the service connection bearing number 230 sanctioned to her flour mill is not dispute. It is also not in dispute that the complainant was running the flour mill to eke out her livelihood. The complainant’s case is that as there were many other flour mills in Aludu village, she could run her flour mill for an hour or two in a day and twenty days in a month. The opposite parties denied the statement of the complainant contending that there were no other flour mills in the village except that of the complainant. The complainant has not substantiated her contention by means of any evidence. The conclusion would be that the complainant has claimed existence of the other flour mills in the village in order to obviate the impression that as her flour mill is the only mill in the village, naturally the consumption of the energy would be beyond the permitted limit since a single mill has to cater to the needs of the large number of the villagers.

    The billing of consumption is directly proportional to the consumption of energy. The opposite party no.4 inspected the service connection of the complainant on 30th July,2002 and issued ExB4,original of inspection notes. The complainant denied the inspection of her service connection by the opposite party no.4. ExB4 though does not contain the signature of the complainant, it bears the signature of her husband. The contention of the complainant that no inspection of her service connection was made on 30th July,2002 is untenable. Consequently, the opposite party no.4 issued ExB3 provisional assessment of loss of energy. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.26,000/- which include the fifty percent of the provisional assessment amount and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compounding charges. ExA2 evidences payment of the amount by the complainant. Consequently to payment of the amount under ExA2, the opposite party no.3 directed through letter dated ExA3 the opposite party no.1 to restore power supply to the service connection of the complainant. Criminal proceedings were launched against the husband of the complainant for committing pilferage of energy as seen from ExB5 and B6, copies of the case diary issued by the Inspector of police, vigilance, Srikakulam. Thereafter, the complainant preferred appeal challenging the provisional assessment made by the opposite party no.4.Therefore, the complainant not only committed the pilferage of energy but she has also exhausted the remedy of preferring appeal against the provisional assessment of the energy. Having taken recourse in the manner provided under the Indian Electricity Act, the complainant cannot file complaint invoking the provisions of the consumer protection act. Even otherwise, it is settled law that in the matter of pilferage of energy, the consumer forum cannot entertain the complaint in view of the establishment of a special Tribunal for the purpose of holding enquiry in such matters. For all these reasons, we hold the appellants’ contention and allow the appeal.

    In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the District Forum. Consequently, the complaint dismissed. No costs.

  3. #3
    Unregistered Guest

    Default please pray for us

    i love my girl friend so much , i love my parents too.. she also loves me , but her parents r arranging marriage to her , she is having two younger sisters ,, for the sake of her family and her parents she is avoiding me ,, its hurting me a lot , i dont want to lose her .. i cant live without her , plz brothers and sisters plz pray for me so that she comes back for me and all her problems should be solved..her parents should agree us. plz .. i want her as my wife.. plz pray for us .. i am waiting for her with open heart ..plz

  4. #4
    phule25 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6

    Angry Consistantly providing low voltage, 104 area, at marripalem, visakhapatnam

    CONSISTENTLY LOW VOLTAGE IN METER NO: 198601/ POLE NO:42 B 1/4, MARRIPALEM OLD POLICE STATION TRANSFORMER NO:9752SINCE FIVE MONTHS

    All the power distribution under the transformer no: 9752(Marripalem Old police Station) rating of transformer is 160 KVA it has written in white paint. My node(Meter No:198601)connected pole is 42B 1/4

    I am facing consistently low power of 100 V from1830 to 2300 hrs every day(05 hours)consistently since 5 moths. Due to date I could not switch on my PCs(online publisher & trading PC).

    No authority is attending or rectifying the fault even after frequently reported by the huge number of consumers since five months..
    Consumer rights are assassinate by Central Power Distribution Company Andhra Pradesh.

    My obligation is that why only always the consumers suffer for the disability in service by the companies? Is there not any consumer right to be enforced to follow by the said companies? Why the company is exempted every time by the government. It says that Government for the people by the people of the people but this incident reveal it. In this way it smell the conspiracy of exploitation & extortion our democracy and gradually converting the system to autocracy, hence the open exploitation is persisting in providing the power supply to consumers and thus fundamental right are nabbed by the companies around the nation.

    Probable faults are :

    1 Low capacity transformer is fitted as per increased consumers in the area the required load in the area (Old police station transformer NO: 9752).

    2. Number of consumers load increased but transformer is not being upgraded in phase in single line or department denying the replacement.

    3. Transfer may be worn out to provide the sufficient wattage as per rated 160 KVA due to consuming of complete running hour which has manufactured for.

    4. The phase connected with me may be beyond the consumers’ loads permitted by the single phase.

    5. May be the three phases capacity of the loads has not been distributed equally.

    I draw you kind attention to repair the same and facilitate the same to consumer as you suppose to provide as per policy laid down by you and hope you will protect the consumer rights to ensure the same against my humble request. The same copy will be forwarded to online consumer court if the necessary measures are not being taken in scheduled periods. Now my system is beeping because of low power. I need your co-operation in this regards.

    Regretfully
    Phuleswari N,
    Webmaster & journalist/Publisher
    Last edited by phule25; 08-26-2010 at 10:41 PM.

  5. #5
    Unregistered Guest

    Default CONSISTANTLY LOW VOLTAGE, 104 Area, At Marripalem, Visakhapatnam

    INSTANTANEOUSLY LOW VOLTAGE IN METER NO: 198601/ POLE NO:42 B 1/4, MARRIPALEM OLD POLICE STATION TRANSFORMER NO:9752SINCE FIVE MONTHS

    All the power distribution under the transformer no: 9752(Marripalem Old police Station) rating of transformer is 160 KVA it has written in white paint. My node(Meter No:198601)connected pole is 42B 1/4

    I am facing consistently low power of 100 V from1830 to 2300 hrs every day(05 hours)consistently since 5 moths. Due to date I could not switch on my PCs(online publisher & trading PC).

    No authority is attending or rectifying the fault even after frequently reported by the huge number of consumers since five months..
    Consumer rights are assassinate by Central Power Distribution Company Andhra Pradesh.

    My obligation is that why only always the consumers suffer for the disability in service by the companies? Is there not any consumer right to be enforced to follow by the said companies? Why the company is exempted every time by the government. It says that Government for the people by the people of the people but this incident reveal it. In this way it smell the conspiracy of exploitation & extortion our democracy and gradually converting the system to autocracy, hence the open exploitation is persisting in providing the power supply to consumers and thus fundamental right are nabbed by the companies around the nation.

    Probable faults are :
    Low capacity transformer is fitted as per increased consumers in the area the required load in the area (Old police station transformer NO: 9752).

    Number of consumers load increased but transformer is not being upgraded in phase in single line or department denying the replacement.

    Transfer may be worn out to provide the sufficient wattage as per rated 160 KVA due to consuming of complete running hour which has manufactured for.

    The phase connected with me may be beyond the consumers’ loads permitted by the single phase.

    May be the three phases capacity of the loads has not been distributed equally.

    I draw you kind attention to repair the same and facilitate the same to consumer as you suppose to provide as per policy laid down by you and hope you will protect the consumer rights to ensure the same against my humble request. Now my system is beeping because of low power. I need your co-operation in this regards.

+ Submit Your Complaint

Similar Threads

  1. Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insurance
    By admin in forum Judgments
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-18-2010, 12:55 PM
  2. Andhra Pradesh Housing Board
    By Advocate.sonia in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-21-2009, 03:24 PM
  3. A.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Limited
    By Advocate.sonia in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 04:21 PM
  4. Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.
    By Sidhant in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 08:12 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 01:42 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •